On June 27, 2019, the High Court of Frankfurt decided that a consent for data processing tied to a consent for receiving advertising can be considered as freely given under the GDPR.

The case concerned an electricity company that relied on consent obtained by another company to advertise its products and services to the claimant. The claimant’s consent had been obtained in connection with his participation in a sweepstakes contest. In order for the claimant to participate in the contest, he had to consent to receive advertising from partners of the sweepstakes company, including the electricity company. The claimant was provided with a list of the eight companies with whom his data would be shared for advertising purposes.

The court was asked to decide on the validity of the consent under the GDPR, and, in particular, whether the consent met the GDPR requirements of a “freely given” and “specific” consent.

In line with previous case law, the court decided that bundling consent for advertising with the participation in a sweepstakes contest does not prevent it from being “freely given”. According to the court, “freely given” consent is a consent that is given without “coercion” or “pressure”. The court decided that enticing a customer with a promise of a discount or the participation in a sweepstakes contest in exchange for the consent to process his data for advertising does not amount to such coercion or pressure. According to the court, “a consumer may and should decide himself or herself if the participation in the sweepstakes is worth his or her data”.

The court also decided that the consent satisfied the GDPR’s specificity requirement because the sweepstakes company had indicated that the defendant would use the data for marketing and advertising in relation to “gas and electricity”. The court highlighted that had the types of products or services not been indicated, then the consent could not have been considered “specific”.

The decision is in line with the Opinion of the Advocate General in the Planet 49 case – still pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (see our blog post here). In this case, users had to consent to being contacted by commercial partners of a lottery organizer in order to participate in the lottery. The Advocate General was of the opinion that this is not a prohibited bundling of consent per Art. 7(4) of the GDPR.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kristof Van Quathem Kristof Van Quathem

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty…

Kristof Van Quathem advises clients on information technology matters and policy, with a focus on data protection, cybercrime and various EU data-related initiatives, such as the Data Act, the AI Act and EHDS.

Kristof has been specializing in this area for over twenty years and developed particular experience in the life science and information technology sectors. He counsels clients on government affairs strategies concerning EU lawmaking and their compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks, and has represented clients in non-contentious and contentious matters before data protection authorities, national courts and the Court of the Justice of the EU.

Kristof is admitted to practice in Belgium.

Photo of Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses

Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses advises on EU data protection, cybersecurity, and consumer law. Her practice covers the full range of Europe’s digital regulatory framework, including GDPR, ePrivacy, NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act, the AI Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act…

Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses advises on EU data protection, cybersecurity, and consumer law. Her practice covers the full range of Europe’s digital regulatory framework, including GDPR, ePrivacy, NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act, the AI Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, the European Health Data Space, and EU consumer protection law, including product safety, product liability, and consumer rights legislation. She focuses on the operational side of compliance — helping clients design policies and processes, draft documentation, and build the internal frameworks needed to meet regulatory requirements in practice.

She also advises on contentious matters, drawing on experience managing investigations before national regulators and proceedings before national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. She works closely with Covington’s disputes teams on matters at the intersection of regulatory compliance and litigation.